On Jul 13, 2007, at 2:00 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 01:21:36PM -0400, Bill Moran wrote:
>> Open source, by it's very nature, has an air of "doing good for the
>> world" to it. Thus, "do no evil" is somewhat implied by anyone who
>> claims to be a proponent of open source.
>
> This is getting off-topic for the list, I think, but I have to
Actually, I think it's very on-topic. It's very important to me that
we have a strong relationship between the community and commercial
companies, and part of that is discussing what people's expectations
are of companies
> disagree strongly with this description of the "very nature" of "open
> source". Indeed, the term "open source" was coined precisely to get
> _away_ from that do-gooder reputation of the old "Free Software"
> moniker, and to emphasise the simple, practical benefits of having
> source code that you can modify.
>
> I don't believe for an instant that IBM, for instance, is intending
> to do good for the world by working on Linux. They're trying to run
> a business, and they think that by getting involved in this way, they
> can get some hunk of the market. (IBM is simply too big to want to
> do good or ill: they have to be run more or less exclusively on
> whatever sells stuff and makes shareholders leave management alone.)
> Similarly, Stonebraker wasn't doing harm to the world when he tried
> to commercialise Ingres (or Postgres!). There are plenty of
> different motivations that people have for placing their code under
> an open source license. I'm happy they're doing it whatever their
> motivation.
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)